55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 09:18 am
@Walter Hinteler,
That is not a vacation spot.
It IS however home to some military retirees, and it is also the home of several military strategy schools.

Quote:
Garmisch-Partenkirchen, located on the German-Austrian border at the foot of the Alps, was two 1,100 year old towns when they were reluctantly merged in 1935 for the 1936 Winter Olympics.

The military presence began in 1935 when the German army built Krafft von Dellmensingen Kaserne (now Artillery Kaserne) as a home for their elite "Edelweiss" mountain troops.

Already a popular German ski resort area, the growing city became a U.S. military garrison in 1945. Since then it's evolved into the US Army Garrison Garmisch and currently shares the kaserne with the Bundeswehr's Gebirgsmusikkorps of the First Mountain Division.

The population of Garmisch-Partenkirchen is approximately 26,000, and the close-knit military community consists of service members and DoD civilian employees assigned to the garrison or a tenant unit, family members, and a large retiree population in Bavaria and Austria. USAG Garmisch serves all of the community needs and those of guests.
Their mission statement is: To consistently provide exceptional programs and services for our customers in Southern Bavaria.

Garmisch-Partenkirchen has many beautiful places to visit, beginning with the Zugspitze, the tallest peak in Germany with year-round cog-train service going deep through the mountain to the top, and cable car service to the summit. Partnach Gorge, a deep crevasse declared a natural monument in 1912, is a rushing white-blue stream with waterfalls, an iron bridge and breathtaking views. The 1936 Olympic Ice Stadium and ski jump offer local and international competitions. World-class winter sporting events are held on the Hausberg, with German and American ski lodges in town at the base of mountain. Just minutes away are: King Ludwig II's castle at Neuschwanstein, the model for Walt Disney's Sleeping Beauty castle; Linderhof Palace with the Hall of Mirrors and the Venus grotto, and the baroque-style Ettal Abbey are located near Oberammergau. The city of Oberammergau is noted for its religious woodcarvings and is the home to the famous Passion Play every 10 years. Munich to the north is the wonderful capital city of Bavaria with its cultural activities, beer halls, the Nymphenburg Palace, the English Gardens and of course, Oktoberfest, the world's biggest party. Salzburg, with Mozart's home, is an easy drive, as is Innsbruck. Italy, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic are only a few hours away.

The Garrison and Tenant Units:

USAG Garmisch supports three main tenant units: the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies at Sheridan Kaserne, the NATO School in nearby Oberammergau, and the Armed Forces Recreation Center. The garrison also supports numerous smaller units and facilities spread across Southern Bavaria. Military personnel from all branches of service live in the newly remodeled Breitenau Housing Area on Artillery Kaserne.

The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, located on Sheridan Kaserne in Garmisch, Germany, is a unique U.S. Department of Defense and German Ministry of Defense security and defense studies institute. Since its dedication in 1993, its mission has been to create a more stable security environment by advancing democratic institutions and relationships, especially in the field of defense; promoting active, peaceful security cooperation; and enhancing enduring partnerships among the nations of Europe, Eurasia, North America and beyond. With an international faculty and staff from 10 partner nations, the Center offers five graduate-level resident courses, outreach events such as conferences, seminars and workshops, a research program, foreign area studies and foreign language training. These programs are designed to foster understanding and "intellectual interoperability" among participating civilian and military professionals, as a necessary step in forging a community of nations who can cooperate in addressing complex regional and global security issues. Since the Center's founding, more than 6,100 military and civilian leaders from more than 100 nations have graduated from resident courses and about 18,500 have attended more than 360 outreach events.

The NATO School, located in Oberammergau about 12 miles to the northwest, is NATO's key training facility on the operational level. Since 1953, the NATO School has trained and educated members of the Alliance as well as personnel from partner nations. The mission of the NATO School is to conduct courses, training and seminars in support of NATO's current and developing strategy and policy. This includes cooperation and dialogue with military and civilian personnel from Non-NATO nations. The School strives for top-down clarity of vision in the educational process, especially during the present.


So while there may be vacation spots in the area, and there may be people there IN THE TOWN on vacation, the military base itself is NOT a vacation spot.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 09:45 am
@mysteryman,
You should stay at the Edelweiss Lodge and Resort - you certainly would change your opinion! (Besides that, you probably would do it when you'd visited the above mentioned places, too.)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 09:58 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
So, why don't we see Conservatives flocking to take vacations at Club Gitmo, if it's so nice?


Tell me, what US military bases allow civilians to vacation on them?


When I was in college, I practically lived on Cannon AFB--was dating an airman stationed there. Kirtland here in Albuquerque used to permit tourists to go onto the base to visit the Atomic museum located on the base, and there were also a couple of ball fields on base that they would let the Little Leaguers use and most of us 'civilians' could pass through the base pretty much at will. After 9/11, however, all of that was stopped and security on the base tightened considerably. They even eventually moved the museum off base so that the public would still have access. When I have to go on any of the bases to work now, it practically takes an act of Congress (exaggeration) to get through security.

So, I doubt military bases would qualify as any kind of vacation spot these days.

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:06 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

So, I doubt military bases would qualify as any kind of vacation spot these days.


From the website of the "Edelweiss Lodge and Resort Unit 24501 APO AE 09006", which is part of the above mentioned Garmisch Base:
Quote:
Each Edelweiss Lodge and Resort guest room will provide an intimate setting for a vacation, adorned with rustic wooden furniture, custom made upholstery and bedding and plenty of room for everyone. Nearly every room has either a private balcony or patio where guests will enjoy inspirational views of the Alps. Guests will have the choice of several different room types to fit their needs. We are a ADA certified facility.

Edelweiss Lodge and Resort also has a Vacation Village and Campground that offers a variety of accommodations for those that like to sleep in the great outdoors. Wood cabins with a variety of amenities and a campground nestled in the Loisach river valley, offer towering views of Alpine peaks.

Quote:
http://i42.tinypic.com/s60vhz.jpg

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:30 am
@Walter Hinteler,
The Edelweiss Lodge and Resort, however, was specifically designated as a safe/secure place for American military and their families to R & R. As I recall there is or was a U.S. military outposts at Garmisch near the resort, but I understood this not to be a military base as we are describing military bases. One of my relatives was stationed there for awhile before being reassigned in the states. He described it as an incredibly beautiful paradise, especially compared to Nellis AFB in Nevada where he next went.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:53 am
@Foxfyre,
I know, I've been there (although only in it's predecessor unit).

However, it is part of the U.S. Army Garrison (USAG) Garmisch (altogether three major entities).
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:03 am
Quote:
Sanford's undisclosed getaway mocked in the media, criticized by lawmakers
(By Tim Smith, Greenville News, June 23, 2009)

COLUMBIA - Gov. Mark Sanford has been hiking along with Appalachian Trail, his spokesman said this morning, and he will return to work tomorrow because of the attention this trip has garnered.

Joel Sawyer, a spokesman for the governor, said Monday that he could not disclose the location of Sanford. He said today that the governor’s staff waited until last night before releasing more detail, in part because “we wanted to have a little bit better understanding of where he was.”

He said the governor was taken aback by so much attention to his trip.

Sawyer said he did not know when the governor would finish his hiking trip or what section he was on of the popular trail, which runs from northern Georgia to Maine. Sawyer said there was no need to turn over his authority to the lieutenant governor.

Sawyer on Monday said the governor had left town last week to a secret location to “recharge” after his bruising political battle with lawmakers over the federal stimulus issue.

Sanford’s sabbatical drew the interest this morning of national radio talk show host Glenn Beck, who mused that the reason the conservative governor’s absence had stirred so much talk among politicians is because he poses a threat to the status quo.

“This guy’s a threat,” he told listeners. “What do they do? They smear him.”

Beck and his staff poked fun at critics of Sanford, mockingly suggesting that one reason Sanford’s wife had said she was not sure where her husband was could be because she had him killed.

“What’s next, Governor Sanford, fishing at Christmas?” Beck quipped.

One state senator questioned whether the governor’s location was known by his staff and criticized the governor for leaving without handling over control of state government to Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.

“I think everybody in South Carolina ought to have a problem with it,” said Sen. Jake Knotts, a West Columbia Republican and frequent Sanford critic. “I don’t mind him taking off somewhere to be alone. But the constitution says that in the absence of the governor, the lieutenant governor should be left in charge.”

Sawyer said the Republican governor was taking time away “to recharge after the stimulus battle and the legislative session, and to work on a couple of projects that have fallen by the wayside.”

He said the brief sabbatical is not unusual.

“The governor put in a lot of time during this last legislative session, and after the session winds down it's not uncommon for him to go out of pocket for a few days at a time to clear his head,” Sawyer said in a statement. “Obviously, that's going to be somewhat out of the question this time given the attention this particular absence has gotten.”

Before leaving last week, Sanford told his staff his whereabouts and let them know he would be difficult to reach, Sawyer said.

Should any emergencies arrive before his return, Sawyer said, the governor’s staff would contact other state officials to address them.

Knotts, a former police detective who first learned of the governor’s disappearance on Saturday, said Sanford left last week in a State Law Enforcement Division vehicle and that agency has not been able to contact him since. He said it is not the first time the governor has shaken his security detail.

“I understand that in other instances over the last several weeks, the governor has left without any detail and gone for short periods of time,” Knotts said, “but this is the longest.”

SLED Director Reggie Lloyd could not be reached for comment.

Knotts said he also had a problem with the governor taking a fully equipped SLED vehicle.

“I’ve had my battles with the governor,” Knotts said. “But this isn’t a battle with the governor. This is just plain out logical thinking.”

When Sanford first took office in 2002 he indicated he did not want a security detail watching him. He later relented after discussions with SLED’s chief.

Word of his disappearance on Monday prompted the leader of the Senate Democrats to say that he was praying for the governor.

“We’ve been concerned by the governor’s erratic behavior for some time,” Sen. John Land said in a statement. “We’re praying for him and his family. I hope he is safe and that he contacts the First Lady and his family soon.”

Sanford spent months opposing the acceptance of about $700 million in federal stimulus aid and even filed suit to try and get a federal judge to rule on the issue after the Legislature passed a budget with a provision that required the governor to apply for the money.

A federal judge sent the issue to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which ruled against the governor.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:09 am
Obama is a GANGSTER, and must be impeached.

1. For spending the Federal revenue in ways that irritate me.
2. For being a socialist and fellow traveller.
3. For not having a lovely complexion like Mr. Bush.

If Republicans have not succeeded in removing Obama from office by the time of the 2010 elections, they will get prickly heat and break out in rashes. If Republicans don't even try to bring a bill of impeachment against Obama by the 2010 elections--they will burn in Hell!

(This Icanesque message brought to you as a public service.)
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:19 pm
@Setanta,
People burn in hell for misquoting people as well.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:21 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

People burn in hell for misquoting people as well.


That's a pretty low bar to go to hell, don't you think?

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
With Okie's Obama gestapo hysteria, his afterlife is lookin' pretty damned hot . . .
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 02:06 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well, okie is safe; he only quotes himself. He provides no outside source for his claims, and dreams them up in his own tiny brain. His contributions to a2k only panders to conservatives who think alike; their posts are always something negative about Obama or about fear-mongering about the stimulus plan or health plan. Ask them to produce evidence for their statements, and we get silence.

The fear of god has taken over their brain cells, and they translate that into everything else about the current administration without looking at the reality or understanding them.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 03:19 pm
Thomas Sowell, who is on the record that he is NOT a registered Republican, presented a column this week that could have been written specifically for this thread. I hope all who think the stability of our nation may depend on the Democratic majority being defanged in 2010 and President Obama defeated in 2012 will read this and think about what he is saying.

Dr. Sowell wrote and wrote and wrote during the campaign valiantly attempting to warn us what we were getting with Barack Obama, but he went largely unheeded. So far, just about everything he warned us about has come true or is coming true. That, in my opinion, greatly increases the odds that he is correct about this too:

Quote:
Jewish World Review June 23, 2009
GOPers in the wilderness
By Thomas Sowell

A Gallup poll last week showed that far more Americans describe themselves as "conservatives" than as "liberals." Yet Republicans have been clobbered by the Democrats in both the 2008 elections and the 2006 elections.

In a country with more conservatives than liberals, it is puzzling " in fact, amazing " that we have the furthest left President of the United States in history, as well as the furthest left Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Republicans, especially, need to think about what this means. If you lose when the other guy has all the high cards, there is not much you can do about it. But, when you have the high cards and still keep taking a beating, then you need to re-think how you are playing the game.

The current intramural fighting among Republicans does not necessarily mean any fundamental re-thinking of their policies or tactics. These tussles among different segments of the Republican Party may be nothing more than a long-standing jockeying for position between the liberal and conservative wings of that party.

The stakes in all this are far higher than which element becomes dominant in which party or which party wins more elections. Both the domestic and the foreign policy direction of the current administration in Washington are leading this country into dangerous waters, from which we may or may not be able to return.

A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender " especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

The glib pieties in Barack Obama's televised sermonettes will not stop Iran from becoming a nuclear terrorist nation. Time is running out fast and we will be lucky if it doesn't happen in the first term of this president. If he gets elected to a second term " which is quite possible, despite whatever economic disasters he leads us into " our fate as a nation may be sealed.

Unfortunately, the only political party with any chance of displacing the current leadership in Washington is the Republican Party. That is why their internal squabbles are important for the rest of us who are not Republicans.

The "smart money" says that the way for the Republicans to win elections is to appeal to a wider range of voters, including minorities, by abandoning the Ronald Reagan kinds of positions and supporting more of the kinds of positions that Democrats use to get elected. This sounds good on the surface, which is as far as many people go, when it comes to politics.

A corollary to this is that Republicans have to come up with alternatives to the Democrats' many "solutions," rather than simply be nay-sayers.

However plausible all this may seem, it goes directly counter to what has actually happened in politics in this generation. For example, Democrats studiously avoided presenting alternatives to what the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration were doing, and just lambasted them at every turn. That is how the Democrats replaced Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ronald Reagan won two elections in a landslide by being Ronald Reagan " and, most important of all " explaining to a broad electorate how what he advocated would be best for them and for the country. Newt Gingrich likewise led a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives by explaining how the Republican agenda would benefit a wide range of people.

Neither of them won by pretending to be Democrats. It was precisely the Republican "moderates" " Bob Dole and John McCain " who lost disastrously to Democrats who were initially little known individuals but who knew how to talk.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell062309.php3
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 03:43 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.


Can't take someone who writes stuff like this seriously.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 03:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
In a country with more conservatives than liberals, it is puzzling " in fact, amazing " that we have the furthest left President of the United States in history, as well as the furthest left Speaker of the House of Representatives.

When Sowell makes statements like that you really have to wonder what reality he lives in.
Obama is further left than FDR? I would say Obama is about as far left as Clinton was and maybe not even quite that far. I really can't think of any Obama policy that would be considered left of Clinton when he was President.

Quote:
A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.
A quadrupling of the debt? Sowell should know the difference between debt and deficit. There was no quadrupling of the debt.

Quote:
Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.
What does sharia law have to do with Obama? I think Sowell is losing it by trying to play the muslim card.

Quote:
For example, Democrats studiously avoided presenting alternatives to what the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration were doing, and just lambasted them at every turn. That is how the Democrats replaced Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Sowell is now arguing that Obama didn't take a stand on any issues or make any promises? Sowell has really lost it, it seems. What does he think Obama's stand on health care is? It certainly isn't based on opposing Bush.




0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 04:24 pm
Parados wrote:

When Sowell makes statements like that you really have to wonder what reality he lives in.
Obama is further left than FDR? I would say Obama is about as far left as Clinton was and maybe not even quite that far. I really can't think of any Obama policy that would be considered left of Clinton when he was President.

Parados is wrong:

Note:


by Bret W.
Member since:
September 7, 2006 Why Obama is a Socialist
May 17, 2008 08:38 PM EDT
views: 1523 | rating: 8.2/10 (5 votes) | comments: 14
In response to an excellent question on another thread, I decided to write this article to clear up the term "Socialist" that I've often tagged Barack Obama with, here on Gather. He is one because he supports government expansion, higher taxes, and greater ownership of the means of production and distribution of these systems. Go to barackobama.com and see for yourself. Most likely you'll see him at the Home page with another Socialist, John Edwards.

Political labels, like "Socialist" or "Far Left" are relative to the types of governments they represent. Let me give you an example :
In 1987, most of the old-line Soviet leadership would have been called VERY Conservative...............Conservative for a Communist, that is.
In the American system, any of those old-line Soviets would have been considered WILDLY Left Wing - which they were.

In a Communist system like North Korea, Kim Jong-il is a Conservative.
In a Communist system like Cuba, Fidel and Raul Castro are Conservatives.

However, in our political system, all 3 are WILDLY Left Wing.

Obama is not "just slightly Left of Center"................he's FAR Left, and has the accreditations from many Left Wing magazines for his Far Left views. The most memorable one was his rating in The National Journal, who has a yearly Liberal ranking of Senators and Congressmen, based purely on their voting record. Guess who ranked as this year's #1 most Liberal Senator? Yep, you guessed it : Barack Obama.
That alone puts him at the farthest Left extreme on the American political scale. Hillary was ranked #16.............which actually puts her in the "slightly Left of Center" category.

0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 04:29 pm
Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

********************************************************************

It is obvious that Sowell means the people in Europe. If you don't think the fanatics in Islam are a threat to Europe note:

Sarkozy speaks out against burka

Mr Sarkozy was speaking at a special session of parliament in Versailles
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has spoken out strongly against the wearing of the burka by Muslim women in France.

In a major policy speech, he said the burka - a garment covering women from head to toe - reduced them to servitude and undermined their dignity.

Mr Sarkozy also gave his backing to the establishment of a parliamentary commission to look at whether to ban the wearing of burkas in public.

In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarves in its state schools.

'Not welcome'

"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Mr Sarkozy told a special session of parliament in Versailles.

"That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity.

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.


But he stressed that France "must not fight the wrong battle", saying that "the Muslim religion must be respected as much as other religions" in the country.

A group of a cross-party lawmakers is already calling for a special inquiry into whether Muslim women who wear the burka is undermining French secularism, the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby in Paris says.

The lawmakers also want to examine whether women who wear the veil are doing so voluntarily or are being forced to cover themselves, our correspondent says.

Mr Sarkozy's speech was the first a French president has made to parliament since the 19th century - made possible by a constitutional amendment he introduced last year.

Later on Monday, Mr Sarkozy was expected to meet the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah al-Thani.

In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, triggering heated debate in the country and abroad.

Members of the French government have been divided over the issue.

The immigration minister, Eric Besson, has said a full ban will only "create tensions" while the junior minister for human rights, Rama Yade, said she would accept a ban if it was aimed at protecting women forced to wear the burka.

France's official Muslim council has criticised the debate.

"To raise the subject like this, via a parliamentary committee, is a way of stigmatising Islam and the Muslims of France," said Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion.

France is home to about five million Muslims.




0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 04:40 pm
Parados wrote:

Quote:
A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.A quadrupling of the debt? Sowell should know the difference between debt and deficit. There was no quadrupling of the debt.


Parados may be correct. The debt will not be quadrupled but tripled.

And, I am certain that if Parados could contact Sowell, he would find that Sowell may be able to show Parados where he came from with his statement but NOTE:

As of June 18, 2009, the total U.S. federal debt was $11,342,734,351,973.14,[2] or about $36,989 per capita. Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $7.098 trillion.[3] In 2007, the public debt was 36.8 percent of GDP,[4] with a total debt of 65.5 percent of GDP.[5] As of 2007, the debt of the United States ranked as the 22nd-largest in the world as a percentage of GDP.[6] As of June 2009 the debt was 82.5 percent of GDP based on current GDP. This level of debt has not been seen since 1951, with the nominal value the largest in recorded history. The President's 2010 budget estimates that total debt relative to GDP will rise to 97% by 2010 and stabilize at approximately 100% thereafter.[7]


2007-DEBT 36% OF GDP

2010-DEBT 97% of GDP
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 04:43 pm
Dr. Sowell( one of the finest and most brilliant Afro-Americans that ever lived) wrote:

A corollary to this is that Republicans have to come up with alternatives to the Democrats' many "solutions," rather than simply be nay-sayers.

However plausible all this may seem, it goes directly counter to what has actually happened in politics in this generation. For example, Democrats studiously avoided presenting alternatives to what the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration were doing, and just lambasted them at every turn. That is how the Democrats replaced Republicans at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.


Parados wrote:

Sowell is now arguing that Obama didn't take a stand on any issues or make any promises? Sowell has really lost it, it seems. What does he think Obama's stand on health care is? It certainly isn't based on opposing Bush.


******************************************************

Is Parados grammar challenged or just a vicious liar?

Sowell's sentence talked about Democrats--NOT Obama!!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 05:00 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I don't want to go to Palau either, cyclops. But if Obama gets his National Security Force, you will probably sign up and help him send all conservatives to a re-education camp at Gitmo or someplace like it. That would be no surprise at all.


What makes you think I would do something like that? Do you honestly believe that of me, and other Liberals - that we're looking to oppress you out of existence?

I only ask, b/c that's a horrible thing to accuse someone of wanting to do. A little twisted on your part.

Cycloptichorn

Well, thanks for the non-combative answer. I did make a bold statement. I do not know you at all, but what I do know here on this forum, I perceive you as probably a decent person, but you have totally bought into the leftist agenda in this country. As a political movement, I honestly do very much think it is a very dangerous movement, far more dangerous than anything coming from the right. The reasons I believe that are many, but I just sum it up by saying the left is very angry, they want what others have, and they will go to almost any lengths to obtain power and the things they want, and once that power is obtained, they are not going to give it up easy.


I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the "leftist agenda in this country."

Again, there is no support for your bold statement implying that the Obama administration's goal is to oppress conservatives out of existence. You offer nothing other than a deluded Henny-penny tale of a falling sky. You are engaged in fear mongering, plain and simple.

You say the "left" is angry. The truth, however, is that the entire country--left, right, middle, et al., is angry with the sorry state of our union after many years of mismanagement which occurred while "conservative" Republicans were in control of the government.

Your accusation that those on the left "want what others have" lacks substance and meaning. What are you trying to say? What are these unnamed things that allegedly belong exclusively to the right that you believe the left is trying to take away? Surely you're not suggesting that governmental "power" belongs exclusively to right wing conservative Republicans, are you?

What are you saying when you allege that those on the left will go to almost any length to obtain power and the things they want? Don't you understand that a nationwide election was held and that Democrats won the electoral support of the majority of the people? Those who are elected to office wield the power of the government. Power in the government does not belong exclusively to those who identify themselves as being on the right.

Your rant of woe merely shows that you're the one who is displaying anger because the party that you support no longer occupies majority status within our governmental framework. Thus, you resort to fear mongering by making vague and unspecified claims of danger.


Quote:
Obama came along and knew how to play into this mindset and fool enough people with his mantra of change. Remember, leftists believe in big government and a very powerful government, and the rights of individuals are to be trampled at the expense of their perceived good of the whole.


There is no evidence that Obama is the "left wing extremist" that you have deluded yourself into believing. On the contrary, the evidence thus far demonstrates that Obama is mostly a centrist. In fact, he leans right on many issues and has continued many of the Republican policies that outraged many people from all spectrums of the political landscape. I am personally disappointed in the Obama administration's Department of Justice that continues to vigorously defend Bush's surveillance policies, torture policies, detention policies, etc.

You have deluded yourself concerning the mindset of people you identify as leftists. The big government vs. small government dichotomy is simply partisan rhetoric. All Americans want an effective government that actually accomplishes the goals that justify its existence. For instance, our infrastructure is decaying. Individual citizens cannot inspect roads, bridges, and dams and repair or replace the ones that threaten our safety. Accordingly, the government is in charge of our infrastructure. When your loved one is killed by driving on a 50-year-old bridge that collapses into a river, or when your niece's entire family is wiped out by a flash flood caused by a failed dam, then you cry, "Where is my government? Why didn't the government maintain that bridge or replace that dam?" You will decry the failings of government, yet you are unwilling to support or pay for a government that can effectively do the many jobs that it must do on our behalf.

Taking care of our infrastructure requires tons of people on the government payroll and tons of tax dollars. That's merely one public responsibility out of the many responsibilities that we place on our government. Shrinking the size of government simply for the sake of doing so doesn't serve our interests when it makes our government incapable of doing its intended job. The costly business of government--by its very nature--in unprofitable, but necessary.

The private sector is motivated by profit--not the welfare of the nation's citizens. If the private sector is not regulated by the government, then the general welfare of our citizens is placed in jeopardy and is subject to the whims of a self-interested aristocracy. But, you and other brainwashed conservatives believe that regulating the private sector violates individual freedom. Thus you spout the false mantra designed by the aristocracy to demonize those who want to regulate commerce for the public good: "rights of individuals are to be trampled at the expense of their perceived good of the whole."

You unquestionably buy the profit-motivated agenda of "conservative" and Republican aristocrats who have brain washed you to believe that unfettered free enterprise is good and government regulation is bad. However, when your grandchild dies from lead poisoning because he sucked on a toy that was adorned with lead-based paint, then you cry, "Where is my government? Why didn't the government protect my grandchild?" When you sue the manufacturer for making an unsafe toy and causing the wrongful death of your grandchild, you may not be entitled to any compensation because you previously carried the banner of tort reform for the interests of big business. After all, making business responsible in our civil courts for the harm it causes to individuals is bad for business and cuts into profits.

You carry the water for the right wing agenda: Suing business is bad; tort reform good! Deregulation is good; compensatory and punitive damages are bad! All those who believe in individual freedom should support government deregulation and caps on compensatory damages and the abolition of "punitive damages" so that big business can make cheap, uninspected, unsafe products for public consumption and reap huge profits without any liability to those whom big business kills, maims, or harms in any way!

Although you claim that the "right" or conservatives or Republicans are the champions of individual rights, we see very little evidence to substantiate the claim. You fight the battle for the "rights" of business to make enormous profit without regulation or any accountability to the people while you simultaneously fight to oppress people whom you disfavor because of the color of their skin, their nationality, their faith, their sexual orientation, their reproductive choices, or their impoverished status. You are one of many gullible souls who allow the right wing politicians to control you through wedge issues that make you feel morally superior to those on the left.

You are deluding yourself if you truly believe you're a champion of individual rights. You're not. History has proven over and over again that it has been the very people whom you label as "dangerous" -- those on the left -- are the ones who have fought and have won the hard battles for civil rights.


Quote:
I have been thinking about Obama's security force for the past few days since I recalled it. Why would Obama want a National Security Force that is "just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well funded as the military?" Is the man goofy? Did I make that up? No, he said it, he must believe it. Does he know how much we spend on the military and the true capability of it? Again, is this man goofy? Is he deranged? I have to question the sanity of anyone that would propose such a thing. Yes, I have finally been compelled to come to the conclusion I did not want to believe, I think Obama truly is a very very dangerous man, and I sincerely hope for the good of this country we can get rid of him next election, and I sincerely hope we survive it until then. If he screws up bad enough, maybe he could be impeached, but there is no sentiment for that now.

You asked my honest opinion. I gave it to you. I don't think you believe you are that dangerous, and you aren't, but you are supporting a very dangerous movement that could end up in very troubled waters. That is my honest opinion. I hope my fears are exaggerated, perhaps they are, but some things really bug me, the security force is one.


You are misrepresenting Obama's words. He was voicing his opinion that the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, and the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia are just as important to the future of our country as the soldier at Fort Carson. Obama stated his opinion that the burdens of service to our country should not fall exclusively on the backs of our military, but should be shared by all citizens. You have been brainwashed to believe that Obama's opinion, shared by almost everyone in this country, is dangerous. And you have the audacity to question Obama's sanity?

Quote:
And really, Obama is not a very open person. I do not feel he is giving us his true self when he presents himself to us. As a personality, at first I found him likable, but as time progesses, he is a bit creepy in terms of his agenda and the way he cloaks everything he does. I hope I am totally wrong. And even if I am right, I am still betting the system, the checks and balances will prevent him from doing everything he wants to do. I certainly hope so.


Your vague "boogey man is scary" routine was rejected by the electorate. When are you going to come up with new material? Please try to present something that contains substance.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 03:12:25